Why I think a communist revolution is a pipe dream in United States.

[cinch]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
That's why Marx thought communism would only be possible in a highly advanced industrial society, because scarcity for most things would be eliminated.

Even in the most highly industrial society, you'll still have scarcity. You may have a large abundance of goods, perhaps even a surplus, but you won't be able to elminate scarcity for most consumer or capital goods. At least, economically speaking.

Unless, of course, we're talking DISTANT future, and some sort of magical self-perpetuating machine that keeps turning out widgets in perpetuity, a la air or water.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Ramo
Who do you think the Illuminatti really take orders from?

Not young indigent students, in any case.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Quote:

So then, why be a communist in the U.S.?

More importantly, how can you be a communist and work for one of the engines of "bourgeoisie oppression" called Citibank? Huh, che?

Watch out now. Several of us work at the Legal Aid Society ...

[Dis]

communists are baby killers

[Shi Huangdi]

Most people simply don't care so much about politics. I think among revolutionary communists, you will see far more support among academics then actual workers. Politics isn't that part of the daily life of ordinary people. Only about half of registered voters care enough to vote, let alone risk their lives in revolution.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Dissident
communists are baby killers

It's not our fault. It's just that babies have much better tasting flesh

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun 1) Nearly half of the citizenry that are eligible to vote are apolitical/apathetic. There is no way that commies can mobilize enough supporters for an electoral revolution.

People have the capacity to change. In revolutionary situations, they can change overnight, literally. If we look at the last period when a revolution seemed possible, the 1960s, we can notice a dramatic change in the mood of the populace from 1965 to 1970.

Quote:

2) Believe it or not, religion still seems to have value to varying extents,

Really!?! Wow. Every revolution has taken place in a country with a great deal of religious feeling. When given a choice between religion and starvation or no religion and action, most people choose action. The U.S. has always been a very religious country. Yet in 1877, in the 1930s, and in the 1960s &'70s, the U.S. was very close to revolution (in some periods more than others).

Quote:

3) Most of the working class, along with the middle class, like the idea of earning what they own.

This assumes, stupidly, that workers in other societies didn't own what they earned. This is like saying, socialism will fail because people like breathing oxygen. It's a meaningless statement.

Quote:

They also place market value on what skills individuals have -- no one likes the idea of being paid the same as someone much lower down the economic ladder, yet working much harder than that person.

People who work harder will be rewarded more. People who work better will also be rewarded. Despite the fact that I have repeated it countless times, socialism and communism are not about levelling.

Quote:

4) Moderate liberals, such as myself, continue to believe that we can reform -- not revolutionize -- our nation/society in ways that can improve the quality of life for a greater number of our citizens.

There's nothing wrong with reform. Communists are among the strongest proponents of reform. If we could achieve a just society through reform alone, there would be no communists. When the capitalists sabotage your reforms, however, you have no answer. You cannot take the necessary steps to defend your reforms, because that would lead to the overthrow of capitalism. Nor do you have any reply when the capitalists overthrown your reforms with a military dictatorship.

In Western Europe, it was only the fact of the USSR that allowed the working classes there to force their governments to accept reforms. Now that the USSR is gone, the welfare states are slowly being dismantled.

Quote:

5) The mass media dominates our society's channels of information and political discourse for good or ill. Commies will have to find some niche in channeling information to the people, and because you won't be able to do this through the main news media with supportive slant, you will have to rely on the Internet for the most part.

The ruling class always has had a near monopoly on ideology. Granted, it has never been to the extent that modern capitalism has with it's hundreds of channels and airwaves. Nonetheless, the development of the personal computer and the internet allow us to reach many more people than ever before. Internet campaigns can force politics.

Look at the internet campaign last winter over the failure of Congress and the Presidency to do anything about the ending of unemployment for millions. They were embarressed in to acting. The internet allowed for a massive protest campaign against Bush's war. Even though that war happened, millions of millions demonstrated around the world in solidarity. We're just getting started.

Soooo, what are some real reasons that communist revolution aren't likely here. I've actually given this quite considerable thought, as has every political person for the last hundred years.

#1, Wealth. The U.S. is extremely wealthy in natural resources, ingenuity, and productivity. As long as the major food related problem in the U.S. is too much food, people aren't going to feel the need to do whatever it takes to get bread.

#2, Metropole. Despite Marx's belief that socialism must begin in an advanced capitalist society, history shows us that social changes begin at the fringes and move to the center. The U.S. is the center of world capitalism. We've been capitalist from the very begining and it is stronger here than any place else in the world. It is not the strongest link in a chain that breaks. It's the weakest.

#3, Safty valves. In the past, people who were fed up with working for a scumbag capitalist boss could go to the frontier and become a farmer. While the frontier has been closed in the U.S. for a long time, it is much easier for a person to go into business here for themselves. Thus, discontent with the system is channeled into support for the system.


So then, why be a communist in the U.S.? Communists are internationalists. We believe in a world wide struggle for social justice, equality, and rights. That we do not expect to make a revolution here any time soon doesn't mean we can't lead our fellow Americans to support our brothers and sisters around the world. Scratch an anti-war movement and you'll find communists organizing it and leading it.

We are also labor activists. Most of the hardest fighting people in the unions are commies. We also fight for democratic change. Whether its in the Teamsters or the New York Transit workers, the people leading the movement to get rid of the corrupt older guard are commies.

Change happens quickly. In the 1950s, to be a communist was to be a hunted person, hounded from your job, ostracized by friends and family, beaten, imprisoned. Ten years later, communists (of a different stripe), were leading the struggle against racism and war. Ten years ago, there was little movement after the collapse of the left following the rapid victory in the Gulf and the collapse of the USSR. Five years later we had the Battle in Seattle. Three years after that, 9/11 pulled the rug out from underneath us. Two years after that, George Bush's War breathed new life into us.

In 1912, the Bolshevik wing of the Russian socialists was down to fifty members, in a country of over a hundred million people. Lenin dispaired of living to see the revolution. Five years later, he was head of the world's largest country, leading a revolutionary wave that crashed across the world. Only the inexperience of the Western movement "saved" the world from socialist revolution. Five years isn't an awful long time.

Ok, a lot of what you say make sense, but let me clarify about my statement about religion.

Yes, revolutions can happen in religious countries -- obviously. What I meant, was that communism as an ideology is anti-religion, isn't it??

THIS is one reason why communism does not have widespread appeal.

[Starchild]

Originally posted by Ramo


Who do you think the Illuminatti really take orders from?

Me.

[DinoDoc]

Have you overthrown the rest of the Q Council?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun
Yes, revolutions can happen in religious countries -- obviously. What I meant, was that communism as an ideology is anti-religion, isn't it??

THIS is one reason why communism does not have widespread appeal.

Communism is less anti-religion than religion is anti-communism. We are an officially atheist movement and we do feel that religion is a trap, but that doesn't mean every communist is an atheist (see monkspider) or that we're out to actively destroy religion.

In many "Official" Communist™ states, religion has often ben supppressed, but this has less to do with being atheist than it has to do with religion's anti-communist stance. Given the rather unstable nature of the "Offical" Communist™ governments, it's not surprising they'd shut down sources of opposition within their borders. Also consider that when many of the revolutions were made, religion was opposed even to democracy by and large.

Not all countries that have made the revolution have done so. Nicaragua had priests in its government.

Here's my take on it. Communism will abolish religion as we know it. In a comepletely democratic society, religion itself will become democratic. At the same time, as the material reasons that cause people to cling to religion disappear, so will people's need to believe in religion. We won't need to actively destroy religion. It will wither away on its own, though it will never completely disappear.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
So if America did turn communist, would it then be the historical responsibility of the Party to spread that revolution around the globe in a Trotskyite quest for world conquest.

#1, If America goes communist, it'd be rather likely most of the world had already gone communist. We're the strong link in the chain, not the weak link.

#2, Spreading the revolution isn't about world conquest. It's a necessity for socialism to work, just as it was for capitalism to grow (and thus survive). Socialism is a world system, not a national one. This is why almost every revolution that stopped trying to spread the revolution immediately turned inward and went bad. If it were about conquest, it would be a lot easier to launch wars of conquest rather than try and subvert your neighbors.

[Velociryx]

Couple of observations tho:

1) If a system fails on the micro (individual nation-state) level, how and why are we to have ANY faith that if it is scaled up to the global level that it's success will be any better? That makes no sense. One could argue that, at the point of global communism, the REASON for its success at that point would be:

a) There's nothing to compare it to. The whole world IS a communist pit of marginality, and with nothing outside that to serve as a basis for comparison, nobody really has a true sense for how wretched things are, and

b) With the Party Bosses running everything, all opposition will be destroyed before they can organize

Sounds fun!

2) It all looks great (especially if you're one of the Party Elites, cos then you get to exploit your comrades without actually calling it that, which is groovy), but until you change the nature of man on the fundamental level, this system leaves a power vaccuum that WILL BE filled. Not "might be" filled, not "could be" filled.....it WILL BE filled by a Stalin, or a Lenin, or a Mao. How do we know this?

History.

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Couple of observations tho:

1) If a system fails on the micro (individual nation-state) level, how and why are we to have ANY faith that if it is scaled up to the global level that it's success will be any better?

This fails to recognize that every succeeding mode of human organization has required larger and larger areas to work, more interconnection between different regions, and always neededed to subjugate previous modes of human organization. Capitalism was no different. Capitalism needs a world market to work.

It was never enough to be capitalist in only one country. Colonies had to be built, resources aquired, nations conquered, feudalism and slavery destroyed. Is this then proof of the failure of capitalism? No, because capitalism has succeed in remaking the world in its image.

2) It all looks great (especially if you're one of the Party Elites, cos then you get to exploit your comrades without actually calling it that, which is groovy), but until you change the nature of man on the fundamental level, this system leaves a power vaccuum that WILL BE filled. Not "might be" filled, not "could be" filled.....it WILL BE filled by a Stalin, or a Lenin, or a Mao. How do we know this?

Even accepting this is true, which I don't, how is this at all different from capitalism. Just because Rockafellers, Mellons, and Rothschilds operate from behind closed doors and out of the spot light doesn't mean they don't control their respective countries. And just as in the age of Kings, this power is hereditary, unearned, and certainly has nothing to do with the supposed meritocracy of capitalism.

Even in the Offical Communist™ governments, power isn't hereditary (with the sole exception of the DPRK). What power did the children of Stalin, Kruschev, and Brezhnev have? Where are Mao's children in the government of China. With no hereditary class, even the distorted socialism of Stalinism is closer to a meritocry than capitalism, and I reject their system as a model.

The nature of man doesn't need to be changed. The nature of man is change and adaptablity. In a society such as capitalism, in which greed is a driving emotion, it should be no surprise that greed is accentuated among humans. We do what we need to survive, and if greed helps us to survive, we will become greedy. In a society in which cooperation is necessary to succeed, people quickly adapt to being cooperative. In fact, this is closer to our true nature, because in periods of extreme threat, we instinctively band together to do what it takes to save the community. Even in the most life-threatening situations, self sacrifice for others is standard, not unusual.

As for the Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, consider that Lenin was frequently outvoted, even when he was supposedly dicator of Russia. Despite the Council of Soviets deciding to disagree with him and do something else, the "dictator" Lenin never did what he wanted anyway, had opposing members of government expelled or arrested, etc. You could do a lot worse than have a "dictator" who always obeys his legislature. When is the last time we had such a leader in the U.S.?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Most people simply don't care so much about politics. I think among revolutionary communists, you will see far more support among academics then actual workers. Politics isn't that part of the daily life of ordinary people. Only about half of registered voters care enough to vote, let alone risk their lives in revolution.

To quote Imram's sig, "Revolution is the opiate of the intellectuals."

[JohnT]

Originally posted by MrFun
1) Nearly half of the citizenry that are eligible to vote are apolitical/apathetic. There is no way that commies can mobilize enough supporters for an electoral revolution.

2) Believe it or not, religion still seems to have value to varying extents, for a significant number of Americans -- be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or whatever. Until you can convince them that your communist revolution plans will not seek to discourage religious freedom, you ain't getting anywhere with these people. Even those who are not actively religious, such as myself, still have latent religious values even if we have not openly expressed those latent religious values.

3) Most of the working class, along with the middle class, like the idea of earning what they own -- even if this means that their hard work has resulted in a higher level of material comfort for themselves in contrast to others in their society. They also place market value on what skills individuals have -- no one likes the idea of being paid the same as someone much lower down the economic ladder, yet working much harder than that person.

4) Moderate liberals, such as myself, continue to believe that we can reform -- not revolutionize -- our nation/society in ways that can improve the quality of life for a greater number of our citizens.

5) The mass media dominates our society's channels of information and political discourse for good or ill. Commies will have to find some niche in channeling information to the people, and because you won't be able to do this through the main news media with supportive slant, you will have to rely on the Internet for the most part.

I'm sure there's a couple of other reasons why a communist revolution in the United States is nothing but a pipe dream, but these are the ones I can think of.

I agree with all your points except #5, for the simple reason that the vast majority of communications in this country about political events are not mass, they tend to be exchanges such as dinner talk, chat rooms, message boards, town hall meetings, etc. Even the idea of a "mass media" is almost a canard (sp?) nowadays*, unless you focus in on just the TV stuff - and even then the sameness is caused more by limitations of the medium coupled with the overabundance of media outlets.

*Especially in comparison with the heyday of the mass-media, the 1950s-1970s.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
To quote Imram's sig, "Revolution is the opiate of the intellectuals."

You realize I'm the one who told him that quote. It's from the Peter O'Toole movie, The Ruling Class.

[Kuciwalker]

Doesn't make it any less accurate

[Velociryx]

Ummm, actually Che, the colonial movement began long, LONG before capitalism was even a glimmer in anyone's eye. Back in the day when Europe was filled with....Kings and Queens and such?

Oh sure, there were the beginnings of what you might call "Protocapitalistic experiments" but these were in such formative stages that they bear no resemblance AT ALL to what we recognize today as capitalism.

Further, capitalism does not require or demand a world market. It began small scale, in pockets of Europe, and when it worked, it began spreading by virtue of its immediate, measurable success.

Contrast that with what you propose we do with communism. "Well, it hasn't worked yet, but let's GLOBALIZE it and see what happens!"

How 'bout you get just ONE success under your belt before you start eyeing the rest of the world, eh Comrade?

As to your supposition that the Rockafellers control this country....have you evidence to support this? Some tangible basis for making the claim?

Absolutely, the wealthy use their power to influence. So? To my knowledge, no one from the Rockafeller family ever made tens of millions of people dissappear. I don't know that we've uncovered any mass-graves here in the US of A, people who opposed the Rockafeller's vast wealth and who were put down by that family. If you have a link to something like this though, I'd surely be interested to see it.

And nowhere did I mention some pre-requiste that power needed to be hereditary in order to be bad or corruptive. So Stalin's kids didn't have daddy's power and influence? Did that somehow make Stalin a nice guy?

And the nature of man DOES need to be changed, because yes, the nature of man is adaptability (to a point) - but so long as greed and the lust for power and dominance over others exists within us (and it does), then into any power vaccuum, such a man WILL come. Every time.

If you deny that, then you truly are not living here in the real world with the rest of us.

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
To my knowledge, no one from the Rockafeller family ever made tens of millions of people dissappear. I don't know that we've uncovered any mass-graves here in the US of A, people who opposed the Rockafeller's vast wealth and who were put down by that family. If you have a link to something like this though, I'd surely be interested to see it.

Nazi Germany, most of Latin America in the 1970s, Indonesia, the Philippines, much of Africa, Burma, etc. All capitalist countries, all have diliberately killed hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people in order to preserve the system of private property. When it comes down to it, the Official Communist™ states have nothing on the capitalist world when it comes to mass murder. Every dacade, more people die due to market forces than died in all the Official Communist™ states during their whole history.

I'll deal with the rest of your post later. 'Tis a beautiful day and I don't want to spend the whole day arguing.

[Kuciwalker]

Nazi Germany was fascist. DUH you are going to have problems in an authoritarian country, whether right or left-wing. However, communisms REQUIRES authoritiarianism.

[Velociryx]

Ohhhhh, I get it. So you're going to ignore all the OTHER problems in those countries, and lay the full measure of the blame for every death there on....capitalism.

Never mind the fact that lots of those places have thoroughly corrupt governments who do nothing to build basic infrastructure or set up health care mechanisms for their people. Doesn't matter if the nation(s) in question are mired in a thirty-year civil war. If market forces are present, they MUST BE the only culprit of note.

Amazing.

-=Vel=-

[Lefty Scaevola]

communism does even work around here without violence. We had a communist (farms workers type) party run a county or two south of me for a few years. It collapads in corruption unmatched in even South Texas. The leaders stole everything and would up in jail.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
Nazi Germany was fascist.

So, it was still a capitalist country.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Never mind the fact that lots of those places have thoroughly corrupt governments who do nothing to build basic infrastructure or set up health care mechanisms for their people. Doesn't matter if the nation(s) in question are mired in a thirty-year civil war. If market forces are present, they MUST BE the only culprit of note.

Ahhh, okay, capitalist countries get to have excuses for their murderous failures, but Official Communist™ countries are murderous by definition.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Facism usually has an extremme degree of central control of the economy, but differnet objectives of distrubution than communism. It ain't capitalism.

[Velociryx]

Yes Che, when the leader OF the Communist movement personally orders millions to their deaths....that lands squarely on the shoulders of communism.

When market forces happen to be present, right along with a bloody civil war, there's a disconnect between the deaths and the cause you're trying to establish.

It's not rocket science to see this.

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
Facism . . . ain't capitalism.

Capitalism is differentiated from all other modes of human organization by private property in the means of production and the exchange of commodities to realize surplus value, i.e., people own things and sell stuff to make money. This was also true in Nazi Germany.

The purpose of fascism is to rescue capitalism. In both Italy and Germany, the unions were crushed, the militants killed, and profitablity restored. Unless you're a Liberatarian, regulation, doesn't negate the existence of capitalism. In any event, even despite the masive regualtion of the rest of society, the capitalists and corporations were relatively untouched. It wasn't until the Nazis were clearly losing the war that they took over running various war industries. Even when they did this they still ensured the companies made profits. When these companies were owned by enemy foreign powers such as Ford, the company's profits were set aside in a eskrow account.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Yes Che, when the leader OF the Communist movement personally orders millions to their deaths....that lands squarely on the shoulders of communism.

When market forces happen to be present, right along with a bloody civil war, there's a disconnect between the deaths and the cause you're trying to establish.

And these wars have nothing to do with capitalism.

[JohnT]

... said as he is walking out the door to enjoy this beautiful day, apparently...

[Velociryx]

A good many wars being waged around the globe today are wars of ideology.

Note here, that capitalism is not an ideology.

Given the above....not really, no.

Have there been? Wars fought purely for economic reasons? I'm sure there have, but none spring to my mind immediately.

-=Vel=-